In denying Mayweather's motion for reconsideration (notably, WWE did not file a similar motion and Mayweather Jr. did not join the motion), the Court recognized at the outset that "[m]otions under Rule 59 are not to be made lightly: 'reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.'” [internal citation omitted]. The Court noted that "“[m]ere disagreement" with a court’s ruling" does not support a motion for reconsideration.

Because the Court held that Mayweather was not seeking reconsideration based upon an intervening change in the law or on account of new evidence and was, instead, arguing that Court erred in applying the law, the Court summarily denied the motion.

Specifically, the Court held:

Defendants’ motion to reconsider seeks to relitigate matters previously decided by the court and appears to be based largely on their displeasure with the court’s prior ruling. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is at odds with Baker and Westinghouse and is therefore inappropriate. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied.

One point to note: disagreeing with a judge's ruling and asking the same judge to reconsider his decision because you think he got it wrong on the law is seldom going to go well. That is why there is the ability to appeal down the road.

Disclaimer

The information on this site consists of my opinion only, i.e., it is not the opinion of my employer or anybody else. In addition, and because this is my opinion, it is not intended to be (and is not) legal advice or an advertisement for legal services. This site provides general information only. Although I encourage interested parties to contact me on the subjects discussed in the articles, the reader should not consider information on this site to be an invitation for an attorney-client relationship. Retaining an attorney is an important decision that should not be based exclusively on the contents of this site or advertising. Before you decide, please feel free to ask me for free printed information about my qualifications and experience (or that of other attorneys with my law firm). I provide legal advice only to individuals or entities with whom I have established an attorney-client relationship, and such advice is based on the particular facts and circumstances of each matter. You should not act nor refrain from acting on the basis of information on this site without seeking legal counsel from an attorney authorized to practice in the relevant jurisdiction. I disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any contents of this site. Any e-mail sent to me through this site will not create an attorney-client relationship, and you should not use this site to send me e-mail containing confidential or sensitive information.

Links to other web sites do not imply an endorsement of the materials disseminated at those web sites, nor does the existence of a link to another site imply that the organization or person publishing at that site endorses any of the materials at this site.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE:

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, I inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.